Body & Soul1 min ago
Has religion got it wrong?
64 Answers
This follows on from Flobadob's thread. According to a new study, original Biblical texts have been mistranslated. God did not create the heaven and the earth. He 'separated' them. Your thoughts?
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6274502/God-is-not-the-Creator-claims-academic.html
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6274502/God-is-not-the-Creator-claims-academic.html
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Such fun!
I do hope you reconsider whether you really want to miss it, nao. So I will respond to your post:
"I don't believe the report suggests she is confusing meaning with etymology"
If you mean the DT report, I wish it did suggest that. I certainly do. You seem to have misunderstood what I said about the reporters. I meant the exact opposite:
"Dont get me wrong. I realize the claim may have been misreported. She may NOT be confusing meaning with etymology. A lot of the reporters all over the Web may hardly know the difference."
I was trying to give her the benefit of the doubt. The report suggested to me, myself and I, who care about such confusions, that she is confusing meaning with etymology. In fact I cant really see what else this could all be about. Obviously if they had indeed misreported her claim, it could be because it is they who don't know the difference.
I will grant you that calling her an upstart would not really be consistent with giving her the benefit of the doubt! But I didn't, at least not explicitly. Jno had said that there was no need to hypothesize that someone must have got his verbs wrong, and I agree, and am saying here that it's an upstart claim to make.
And I still cant accept your suggestion that I should be bothered to find out whether or not she has a reputation. For one thing she has certainly got one now! And it is not one I would care to have. I have demonstrated more than adequately that her thesis is quite simply wrong, as jno could see, even if you can't.
Yes, it is not on the whole what religion teaches, and not what millions believe. Neither should it be. But my dear nao, surely you are not talking about fundamentalism. Whats the point of trying to do that? And to anyone with any serious commitment to the study of religion, rather than to any particular brand of fundamentalism, her interpretation of '
I do hope you reconsider whether you really want to miss it, nao. So I will respond to your post:
"I don't believe the report suggests she is confusing meaning with etymology"
If you mean the DT report, I wish it did suggest that. I certainly do. You seem to have misunderstood what I said about the reporters. I meant the exact opposite:
"Dont get me wrong. I realize the claim may have been misreported. She may NOT be confusing meaning with etymology. A lot of the reporters all over the Web may hardly know the difference."
I was trying to give her the benefit of the doubt. The report suggested to me, myself and I, who care about such confusions, that she is confusing meaning with etymology. In fact I cant really see what else this could all be about. Obviously if they had indeed misreported her claim, it could be because it is they who don't know the difference.
I will grant you that calling her an upstart would not really be consistent with giving her the benefit of the doubt! But I didn't, at least not explicitly. Jno had said that there was no need to hypothesize that someone must have got his verbs wrong, and I agree, and am saying here that it's an upstart claim to make.
And I still cant accept your suggestion that I should be bothered to find out whether or not she has a reputation. For one thing she has certainly got one now! And it is not one I would care to have. I have demonstrated more than adequately that her thesis is quite simply wrong, as jno could see, even if you can't.
Yes, it is not on the whole what religion teaches, and not what millions believe. Neither should it be. But my dear nao, surely you are not talking about fundamentalism. Whats the point of trying to do that? And to anyone with any serious commitment to the study of religion, rather than to any particular brand of fundamentalism, her interpretation of '
And to anyone with any serious commitment to the study of religion, rather than to any particular brand of fundamentalism, her interpretation of 'bara' "create" is just one of many trivial ideas that come up against a background of religious research that has led to conclusions that nobody but the fundamentalists has found the least bit shocking or even surprising for yonks.
Yes, nao, your original question was indeed 'Has religion got it wrong?', but what on earth gave you the idea that no one has discussed that? I assure you I was discussing it, and so were people who engaged with me on this, and if you take the trouble to read the discussion more carefully, you will see that my answer is that it depends what you mean by "religion"! I dread to think what you mean by it!
Yes, nao, your original question was indeed 'Has religion got it wrong?', but what on earth gave you the idea that no one has discussed that? I assure you I was discussing it, and so were people who engaged with me on this, and if you take the trouble to read the discussion more carefully, you will see that my answer is that it depends what you mean by "religion"! I dread to think what you mean by it!
jno and ankou, thank you for 'vair'. Grateful to you.
It isn't a question of whether it was a pumpkin. Of course it was. It says so, doesn't it? The question is whether it was a cucurbita pepo or a cucurbita mixta, for heaven's sake! That's what the academics are arguing about. Do try to address the important things. Perhaps mallam can give us a couple of pages on it.
It isn't a question of whether it was a pumpkin. Of course it was. It says so, doesn't it? The question is whether it was a cucurbita pepo or a cucurbita mixta, for heaven's sake! That's what the academics are arguing about. Do try to address the important things. Perhaps mallam can give us a couple of pages on it.
No couple of pages necessary, chakka. Mutatis mutandis "it isn't a question of whether it was a pumpkin. Of course it was. It says so, doesn't it? The question is whether it was a cucurbita pepo or a cucurbita mixta, for heaven's sake! That's what the academics are arguing about." is exactly what I'm saying.
Mallam, Oh never fear, I read your posts, but it seems you haven't read mine - or at least you haven't understood them. Methinks you are meeting yourself coming back, and dragging jno and Ankou with you, but never mind. I just popped in to say that in your obvious eagerness to belittle this lady, you say you have demonstrated that her thesis is quite simply wrong, but in reaching that conclusion you appear to have overlooked one crucial fact. You don't know what her thesis contains, and therefore it is impossible for you to demonstrate its invalidity, or otherwise. Perhaps, therefore, before bombarding us yet again with the benefit of your wisdom, you'll be kind enough, and sensible enough, to study it before commenting further. You never know - you might just learn something - or perhaps not - but at least then you will know exactly what you are disparaging.
Ankou, the same goes for you. She may well be a numpty-bumpty professor, but until you know her reasons for saying what she's said, comments like that are not only presumptuous, they're insulting. (By the way, you should know by now that my toys are always kept very firmly in my pram).
My purpose in posting this question was not to discuss this study because I don't know what it contains, and unlike most of you, I am not so arrogant as to presume that I do. My intention was to discuss the potential effect it may have, if proven and brought into the public domain, on the millions (and yes, Mallam, there are millions - so I dread to think what you mean by religion too) who believe that God created the universe - and who do not number themselves among those whom Mallam contends have been aware of a separation theory 'for yonks'.
Ankou, the same goes for you. She may well be a numpty-bumpty professor, but until you know her reasons for saying what she's said, comments like that are not only presumptuous, they're insulting. (By the way, you should know by now that my toys are always kept very firmly in my pram).
My purpose in posting this question was not to discuss this study because I don't know what it contains, and unlike most of you, I am not so arrogant as to presume that I do. My intention was to discuss the potential effect it may have, if proven and brought into the public domain, on the millions (and yes, Mallam, there are millions - so I dread to think what you mean by religion too) who believe that God created the universe - and who do not number themselves among those whom Mallam contends have been aware of a separation theory 'for yonks'.
Christians, (and closet Christians alike) have a 'cleaver' trick of boo hooing anything that conflicts with their current interpretation of the 'Holy Scriptures' (which have a remarkable capacity to be interpreted in any of a variety of ways and therefore don't really say anything in particular at all) until they've been pinned to the wall or painted themselves into a corner at which point they ingenuously declare, "Well of course that's what it meant all along". In this convoluted obfuscated world of theirs they can't go wrong at the expense of never being clearly right about much of anything at all.
I, like it appears everyone else here, whether they admit to it or not, am also in the dark as to the basis framing the aforementioned theory but the upshot of it seems to be a jab at one of Christianity’s cherished theoretical underpinnings or if you prefer, flavour of the month, ex nihilo creation and the fact that this has the religious community as well as most of those posting on this thread, up in arms is all by itself all the justification required for me to thank Naomi for posting this albeit potentially remarkable article.
Write on, Naomi! Even though history has taught us, right or wrong, this is not likely to shut them up for long. ;o)
I, like it appears everyone else here, whether they admit to it or not, am also in the dark as to the basis framing the aforementioned theory but the upshot of it seems to be a jab at one of Christianity’s cherished theoretical underpinnings or if you prefer, flavour of the month, ex nihilo creation and the fact that this has the religious community as well as most of those posting on this thread, up in arms is all by itself all the justification required for me to thank Naomi for posting this albeit potentially remarkable article.
Write on, Naomi! Even though history has taught us, right or wrong, this is not likely to shut them up for long. ;o)
Great argument by mallam. I love the idea that creation can be thought of a separating order from chaos, in the way you might seperate a pot from a lump of clay.
I also like the idea of Eta being a terrorist group of Basque creationists. ;-)
Still, I do think this is a bit of a non-story. The fact she's 'a serious scholar' is neither here nor there. Academics are as competitive, publicity-hungry and off-the-wall as anyone else.
I also like the idea of Eta being a terrorist group of Basque creationists. ;-)
Still, I do think this is a bit of a non-story. The fact she's 'a serious scholar' is neither here nor there. Academics are as competitive, publicity-hungry and off-the-wall as anyone else.
Glad you agree with me about it being "such fun", nao, but even for fun I would not read her doctoral thesis, and did not claim to have, or indeed say anything about it at all!
Now you will really think me insane, but before you do that, look "thesis" up in the dictionary. There you will find "A proposition laid down or stated, esp. as a theme to be discussed and proved, or to be maintained against attack (in Logic sometimes as distinct from HYPOTHESIS 2, in Rhetoric from ANTITHESIS 2); a statement, assertion, tenet (We may take the word "proved" there in its original sense off "tested", unless the thesis requires mathematical proof.)
And that meaning will probably be listed before the meaning "dissertation".
What I said was this: "I have demonstrated more than adequately that her thesis is quite simply wrong, as jno could see, even if you can't."
And what that must mean is "I have demonstrated more than adequately that her statement/assertion (obv the one about 'separated' as a translation) is quite simply wrong." And if you look at what jno said he agreed with, you will see that that was what I said he could see.
And why must it mean that?" Because you can demonstrate more than adequately even in a few words that the statement/assertion is quite simply wrong, but you cant demonstrate that the whole doctoral thesis is wrong. Especially not in one of my mere two-page efforts!
I have awarded any number of doctorates to people to whom I would rather have said, like the Irishman who was asked the way, "Well I wouldn’t start from here!" Because considering where they started from they produced original research of sufficient merit.
I think I did read somewhere in this morass that this lady was putting forward this thesis in her doctoral thesis, but I would prob have give
Now you will really think me insane, but before you do that, look "thesis" up in the dictionary. There you will find "A proposition laid down or stated, esp. as a theme to be discussed and proved, or to be maintained against attack (in Logic sometimes as distinct from HYPOTHESIS 2, in Rhetoric from ANTITHESIS 2); a statement, assertion, tenet (We may take the word "proved" there in its original sense off "tested", unless the thesis requires mathematical proof.)
And that meaning will probably be listed before the meaning "dissertation".
What I said was this: "I have demonstrated more than adequately that her thesis is quite simply wrong, as jno could see, even if you can't."
And what that must mean is "I have demonstrated more than adequately that her statement/assertion (obv the one about 'separated' as a translation) is quite simply wrong." And if you look at what jno said he agreed with, you will see that that was what I said he could see.
And why must it mean that?" Because you can demonstrate more than adequately even in a few words that the statement/assertion is quite simply wrong, but you cant demonstrate that the whole doctoral thesis is wrong. Especially not in one of my mere two-page efforts!
I have awarded any number of doctorates to people to whom I would rather have said, like the Irishman who was asked the way, "Well I wouldn’t start from here!" Because considering where they started from they produced original research of sufficient merit.
I think I did read somewhere in this morass that this lady was putting forward this thesis in her doctoral thesis, but I would prob have give
I would prob have given her her doctorate too, as I would prefer to think that the whole "thesis" cannot possibly have been dependent on this one "thesis".
So to calque from your own words:
My purpose in answering this question was not to discuss this study because I don't know what it contains, and unlike none of you, I am not so arrogant as to presume that I do. My intention was also to discuss the potential effect it may have, if COMPETENTLY DEFENDED AND REPLICATED AND/OR CORROBORATED BY OTHER COMPETENT RESEARCHERS, and AT THAT POINT brought into the public domain, on the millions (and yes, nao, there are millions - so I dread to think what you mean by religion too) who believe that God created the universe - and who do not number themselves among those who I contend have been aware of a separation etymology 'for yonks'."
So to calque from your own words:
My purpose in answering this question was not to discuss this study because I don't know what it contains, and unlike none of you, I am not so arrogant as to presume that I do. My intention was also to discuss the potential effect it may have, if COMPETENTLY DEFENDED AND REPLICATED AND/OR CORROBORATED BY OTHER COMPETENT RESEARCHERS, and AT THAT POINT brought into the public domain, on the millions (and yes, nao, there are millions - so I dread to think what you mean by religion too) who believe that God created the universe - and who do not number themselves among those who I contend have been aware of a separation etymology 'for yonks'."
Ha ha ha! Oh, this really is priceless! You're telling me to look up the word thesis? Are you sure about that? My, there's arrogance for you in all its glory!
And now you say I will really think you're insane? Well, you said it! This reminds me of that old US TV sitcom, 'Soap'. Come on - you must remember it! Most of the characters were completely nuts, and each week at the beginning of the show the voiceover would intone "Confused? You will be!" If only we had that voiceover here! Give it up, Mallam, for heavens sake. I have a sneaking suspicion you're not all you claim to be, but take heart - you're not bad at googling at least.
You've got it spot on with one thing though. I do agree with you when you say this is such fun - although I have to say it's becoming just a little tedious now. Zzzzzzz............
And now you say I will really think you're insane? Well, you said it! This reminds me of that old US TV sitcom, 'Soap'. Come on - you must remember it! Most of the characters were completely nuts, and each week at the beginning of the show the voiceover would intone "Confused? You will be!" If only we had that voiceover here! Give it up, Mallam, for heavens sake. I have a sneaking suspicion you're not all you claim to be, but take heart - you're not bad at googling at least.
You've got it spot on with one thing though. I do agree with you when you say this is such fun - although I have to say it's becoming just a little tedious now. Zzzzzzz............
I never thought you wd be one of the people who give me a nasty shock, nao. I gave you the dictionary definition of the sense of thesis that I had intended. It was the one in the Oxford English Dictionary, and if you dont like it you can look it up in any other dict. Again, it's with good reason that I cant be bothered.
And I challenge you to find anything googled and not explicitly acknowledged in any of my posts!
And I challenge you to find anything googled and not explicitly acknowledged in any of my posts!
Perhaps I need to make it a bit simpler:
I knew what I meant by thesis and you didnt and now think you know better than me what I meant. I am not saying that you didnt know that sense of thesis, but you took the word in a sense that didnt make sense!
And I suppose you are in too deep to be convinced by the fact that I have been internal and external examiner of enough doctoral theses at enough universities to know what I am talking about.
I knew what I meant by thesis and you didnt and now think you know better than me what I meant. I am not saying that you didnt know that sense of thesis, but you took the word in a sense that didnt make sense!
And I suppose you are in too deep to be convinced by the fact that I have been internal and external examiner of enough doctoral theses at enough universities to know what I am talking about.
Latest Posts
Film, Media & TV1 min ago
Film, Media & TV2 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles11 mins ago
